An evangelical Christian ministry that is the largest provider of community living services in Ontario, serving 1,400 developmentally disabled individuals in over 180 residential homes, is appealing part of a controversial Ontario Human Rights Commission ruling against it.

In a ruling last April 15, the commission found Christian Horizons (CH) had “violated” the rights of Connie Heintz by dismissing her after she became involved in a lesbian relationship, thus breaking the terms of a “lifestyle and morality statement” that was a condition of employment and which forbade engaging in homosexual relationships, among other immoral activities.

The commission ordered CH to cease using its moral code; pay $23,000, plus two years’ wages and benefits to the dismissed employee; have all its employees undergo pro-homosexual “human rights training”; develop and adopt an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy; review its employment policies; and report to the commission on its progress.

Christian Horizons decided it would no longer require its staff to sign the statement as a condition for employment.  However, they will appeal the rest of the commission’s orders. The ruling has implications for other religious ministries across Canada that require staff to adhere to specific standards of behaviour. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has announced it will seek to intervene in the appeal (LifeSiteNews, April 25, 2008; Faith Today, July/August, 2008).

The OHRC’s anti-Christian atheist adjudicator, Michael Gottheil, referred often in his ruling to the principle of “balancing competing rights,” but he decided that CH had no religious rights because it was not involved in just serving the interests of its Evangelical religious adherents.  “The primary object and mission of Christian Horizons is to provide care and support for individuals who have developmental disabilities, without regard to their creed,” he wrote. “Christian Horizons is not a religious institution whose purpose is to ‘form the hearts and minds’ of its residents in the ways of faith of the organization.”

In other words, Gottheil ruled that as soon as a group of religious-minded people extend their charitable service to include those not of their own persuasion, they cease to have religious rights of their own.  Having struck down the rights of the voluntary charitable organization, Gottheil then denounced their action against Miss Heintz, the complainant, as contrary to an employer’s obligations under the (Human Rights) code.”

In fact, he argued further that when Christian beliefs on sexuality “form the fundamental, core ethic that all employees are required to live out on a daily basis runs a serious risk of being a poisoned work environment.”

Apparently, no one had discovered this “poisoned environment” until a fornicator decided it was worthwhile to make it a case of “discrimination” and had it confirmed by an agnostic partisan adjudicator.

St. Michael’s Hospital
An interesting sideline was provided by Gottheil’s quoting of Brent Hawkes, the notorious Toronto minister of the Metropolitan Community “Church” for active homosexuals and a recent (2005) recipient of the Order of Canada.  In reference to the Catholic St. Michael’s Hospital serving as a contrast to Christian Horizons, Hawkes noted: “They were amazing. This is a Catholic institution. They educated their staff on gay and lesbian issues, they started to treat gay and lesbian couples as full couples before the law required them. They put a rainbow flag into the foyer; they put signs up for Pride Day. They did all kinds of things to make it a safe environment, not only for gays and lesbians, but for their partners as well. So there is … a Roman Catholic institution  … that set aside the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church” (Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Connie Heintz and Ontario Human Rights Commission and Christian Horizons, Decision, April 15, 2008).

A note:
Hawkes forgot to mention that AIDS patients were transferred to St. Michael’s some years ago from another hospital which was being closed, on government orders.  Thereupon, the “gay” community imposed their views on “their” section of the hospital.  They, not the hospital, set aside the Church’s teaching and even continued to have homosexual sex in their hospital rooms.